Radical Feminism Femsplains Science, 1.0… Gender Crime in Science: Suppression of a Woman’s Right to Free-Expression in the Workplace—Masculine Demonisation of Demostrable Femininity

Disclaimer: For comment, I shall be handing over to our Intersectional Feminism Correspondent, Wanda Wumon. Her opinions are entirely her own and do not reflect those of the owner of this blog.

Science: How The Patriarchy Oppresses Women’s Free Expression in the Workplace

For decades, women wanting a career in the patriarchal ‘hard’ (I don’t need to discuss the self-evident misogyny of the word—an obvious label designed to intimidate women) sciences of engineering, physics, and chemistry were expected to study for years alongside men in academic environments that subjected them daily to the torture of stare-rape and the sexualising objectification of the male gaze from privileged cis-white male-baby-nerds. Worse, we were expected to accept, with good grace, regular intimidation: being space-raped by domineering men confident of their entitlement to invade a woman’s 1/2 mile Safe Radius to propose such lewd acts as ‘checking something in your notes’ or ‘partnering up for the group assessment’. Their real meaning was always so, so transparent: systematic weaponisation of academic study in order to suppress the natural creativity and freedom of the female spirit.

We were better; they knew it and were afraid.

We fought, but with The Patriarchy entrenched for centuries, the halls of academia succeeded in oppressing and suppressing the few brave survivors that made it through. You would think that the effects of that devastating experience would end with graduation, but women only found a phallic fence of white coats awaiting them in every engineering department and science lab. Irredeemably scarred at university, women found it impossible to compete with the nepotism and sexism of that elitist system in the workplace. Even Women Warriors with courage and brave intentions succumbed to internalisation of the misogyny. We know the outcome: thousands of emotionally and intellectually battered victims leaving the STEM professions. Those that remained could not even see the glass ceiling, let alone reach it: the stench of unwashed masculine nerd-musk permeated so thickly it was impossible to see through, let alone think through. Otherwise brilliant research careers and minds were marginalised, abandoned, and left for dead.

It was years before we found hope.

With the introduction of positive discrimination quotas and the gradual but inevitable replacement of old-guard Patriarchal Pig Professors, we are reclaiming our rightful place in academia. Our ability to bring empathy, warmth, and hold an unconditional positive regard for poor minorities that need our help and representation, means that the intellectual future of ourselves, our darker sisters, our nations, and the World is assured. Our movement has already demonstrated its tolerance of, and forbearance with, masculinity, despite it being utterly antithetical to Correct thinking. We are in a position to begin de-programming those still swimming in its toxicity. This should be grounds for celebration, but the jack boot of The Patriarchy is not so easily removed from the throat of feminism. Oppression of women in the scientific setting is still an epidemic!

The fight must continue, and the latest batch of ammunition has just been delivered. I have been given exclusive access to a pilot study commissioned by the Sarkeesian Institute for Gender Correctness: Gender Crime in Science: Suppression of a Woman’s Right to Free-Expression in the Workplace—Masculine Demonisation of Demostrable Femininity.

The study looks at how women have battled for decades against patriarchal depictions of their appearance and the functioning of our bodies as something either to fulfill the sexual desires of men or as something to be disgusted by. Perpetuating the virgin/whore dichotomy, these attitudes prevent men from being able to see us as we really are: a whole spirit/mind/body entity—free, wonderful, resplendent, creation embodied, humanity perfected. Whole.

We have had to advocate for ourselves and each other; feminist campaigns celebrating womanhood’s most quintessential and essential elements have been pushing into the mainstream for years, challenging perceptions and empowering women to express their femininity to its fullest extent. The ‘Free bleeding‘ and ‘Free the Nipple‘ movements are bridgeheads, thrusting deep into the complacent bowels of a society so ridden with Patriarchy billions of women feel unable to express themselves. Bringing this confrontational approach to the scientific establishment, into the workplace, under the noses of our so-called colleagues, will rip open the intestines of our oppression, spilling its effluent and leaving us standing naked, bloody, battle-worn, but proud in our Womanhood. Our scientific and engineer oppressor-colleagues, shocked, will have little choice but to redefine their values, their very selves, relative to who we define ourselves to be.

This is my vision: breasts will swing, bouncing a drum-like victory tattoo as we run down corridors lined with slippy lino flooring. Nipples will stand, erect and accusing, in the cold air-conditioned atmosphere, pointing at the sexism and misogyny arrayed against us. Health and Safety guidelines on wearing protective clothing are nothing but tools of the Patriarchy! What do brave women have to fear from bottles of sulphuric acid? Scars are battle marks—our martyrdom writ large in the flesh of our bodies.

Blood on our panties and the front of our lab coats, running free onto sanitised tiling—marks of our martyrdom, marks of our freedom, marks of the future—our liberation! But why stop there? We must defy all dress codes that reinforce workplace norms: wear high-heels! Our chests will out-thrust with pride, nipples now the muzzles of pink cannons raining invisible conscience-fire on the men worshipping the status quo. With our heels thrust up and our buttocks protruding bravely, our period-blood, the ultimate liquid representation of our creative selves: an essence men are incapable of understanding, sharing not in our unique ability to bear new life into the world (even if we are burdened with the knowledge half of it will be male) will lubricate every surface we traverse. Slick, sticky, and scented, its redness will render walking dangerous—a metaphor for the future of any male who seeks to tread upon us as if we were for his utility and a means to his end. Repulsed, the rigid power structures calcified in science and engineering today will crack and fall. Our STEM jobs, our careers, our futures will be clear, bright, and unfettered!

The paper lays out, in detail, a new societal and consciousness-raising model of Amazonian Science, where women are free to pursue feelings-based research, unconstrained by the artificial demands imposed by logic, reason, or the outmoded and limiting notions imposed by Patriarchal Scientific Method. The impeccably researched paper is so convincing, so conclusive, that when I talked to the team behind it, they stated that the pilot data was sufficient proof of the objective ideals behind it and that the paper was ‘beyond’ the need for peer review.

Having read this utterly credible manifesto for the future of the physical sciences, I was so convinced I backed the team’s Patreon account. I feel honoured and privileged they allowed me to do so. The legally binding document that I signed, with some small-print about never critiquing the project, research, personalities involved, or the morals, ethics or the impacts of the ideology should it go mainstream, is just so much worthless paper. The team seems so earnest, so trustworthy, so confident, so assured; I have complete and utter faith in them. Womankind is in the best possible hands.

So, when the paper comes out, I exhort each and every one of you, women of science, to bare all and bleed for the cause over your hermetically sealed and sterile laboratories and engineering works. The lie of women’s emancipation that we have been fed for so long will be shattered, even in these last bastions and strongholds of Male Privilege. When the paper comes out, join together, science-sisters, in stripping for a New Tomorrow!

As for me, I cannot wait that long. I must act—I will be the first in this New Vanguard for change. There can be no peace for us whilst there is peace for them. DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY!!!

Ο+ ⇑

I would like to thank Wanda for airing her opinions. Unfortunately, she will not be able to respond to your comments as she is currently two days into a one-month sentence for indecent exposure, breaking and entering, and criminal damage. She is estimated to have cost the institute she compromised around £14 million and destroyed their research into a new drug that early testing indicated was 95% effective in treating breast cancer. Renowned and respected researcher and Head of the Institute, Tamika Gueye, stated the samples destroyed were ‘irreplaceable’ and the lost revenue had ‘buried’ the project.

In the meantime, Wanda’s prison psychiatrist reports she is doing well, except for refusing sedatives and being unable to relate to the rest of the female inmates. She is reported as looking forward to her release and has been heard repeatedly muttering about liberating repressed nurses in hospitals, ‘… from being forced to wear de-humanising smocks in operating theatres. Clean-room protocols for “the safety of patients” are a political smokescreen, constructs aimed at maintaining the Patriarchy of male surgeons and their female cohorts bound by their internalised misogyny…’

Ο+ ⇑

UNNECESSARY ENDNOTE

The views of Wanda Wumon do not reflect my own. In the same way that an actor in an action movie doesn’t condone mass murder, a writer’s character does not have to reflect its creator or their opinions. It’s a poor writer that cannot create characters with differing viewpoints.

Wanda Wumon does not represent an individual woman or even women in general. She is the embodiment and caricature of an extreme form of feminism. In terms of its approach and values, this ‘feminism’ is the polar opposite of equality or equity feminism (which I wholeheartedly support). Its ideology includes such enlightened concepts as ‘privilege’, the practical outworking of which is assigning a value to an individual based solely on external factors such as sex, skin colour, gender, or the circumstances of their birth and upbringing. Such considerations are given so much weight that things like speech, beliefs, and the way an individual treats others or contributes to society are ignored when considering whether they are a good person, or not. ‘Goodness’ is determined by measuring how much that individual adheres to the beliefs of this extreme sect.

Another sexist gem is ‘internalised misogyny’ which states, basically, that women who do not agree with the ideology are passive and stupidly complicit in their own ‘oppression’. The ideology states that all women and minorities are victims, regardless of whether they feel that to be true or not. Men, cast as members of an undefined, nebulous, overarching ‘Patriarchy’, are all oppressors, again regardless of their morality or how they conduct themselves. Only those thoroughly versed and actively practising the ideology are considered to be ‘immune’ to the Patriarchy’s corrupting influence. As everyone who doesn’t buy into the lie cannot be trusted to think for themselves, the ‘enlightened’ few decide they are the only fit spokespeople: guardians of, and crusaders for, a ‘better morality’ on behalf of everyone else—whether they consent or not.

The outcome is reducing the independent agency of women, assuming them incompetent to live their own lives, and the demonization of men. It’s a divisive ideology that polarises the sexes against each other and condemns 50% of the population to the status of victim and the other 50% to the role of oppressor. Individual responsibility isn’t advocated, other than to measure the adherence to the tenets of belief. Guilt, innocence, worth, and value are relative to the group and defined by the company you keep. No one must ever be offended and, no matter how noble the goal or cause, if doing anything means any subgroup is offended (as defined by them) then the activity must cease immediately and a grovelling, submissive apology be issued. (Just Google ‘Shirtgate’.) However, members of the cult are allowed, by its rules, to be as racist and sexist as they wish without actually being racist or sexist because they have redefined the meaning of the words:

Racism and Sexism = prejudice + power.

So, blacks people can’t be racist towards whites, but whites can be racist to blacks. Similarly, women can never be sexist, but men can. It gets complex when multiple factors like race, sex, and gender status all come into play at once. Then the race is on to find out who is the most oppressed and so has the right of censure. Those below on the ‘progressive privilege stack’ get to be Morality Police for those above and can display poor morals and behaviour with impunity. ‘Top-down’ criticism is denounced as an ‘attack’ because it’s all about being a victim of oppression or an oppressor—a game of pass-the-guilt.

Punishment for breaking a taboo is shaming, mobbing, and ostracism. Dissent is not tolerated, which is one reason I wrote this piece. Here in the UK we have a centuries-old tradition of using caricature and satire to point out the shortcomings of individuals or ideas. As part of a democratic society, the right to free speech is a cornerstone value, and one that is open to anyone. Part of that right is the right to offend, to not tow any line or self-censure because someone, somewhere, just might be upset. Those with level heads will recognise one fact: the more agency and responsibility we take for ourselves, the greater our ability to choose how we respond to ridicule and criticism. Extremists tend towards the defensive, aggressive, and judgmental. When you can take a few knocks, you know you’re getting somewhere as a person.

My Views on Women

Women are my equals, utterly capable of self-agency and meeting men on their own terms. The women I know are not victims and would react strongly to being patronised in that way by me, or any other man or woman. I am proud and privileged—not to be a white male—but to know women like these. Alongside men and ahead of them, they, I believe, are the future of womankind. My life is enriched by knowing them, as they are, on their terms.